Mumbai Court November 2004 Judgments

Bansidhar Ramratan Upadhyay Vs. Ramchandra Ramnarayan Totla

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(1)ALLMR506; 2005(2)BomCR43

Dharmadhikari B.P., J.1. By this revision, under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, the original defendants challenge the order dated 15-4-1996 passed by Additional District Judge, Akola in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 173/1994 and the earlier order passed by Civil Judge, Junior Division, Murtizapur dated 11-10-1994 below Exhibit 65 in Regular Civil Suit No. 100/1991. They have prayed for dismissal of the application Exhibit 65 moved by the present non-applicant/plaintiff in that suit. The said application at Exh. 65 was moved by the present non-applicant for breach of orders of temporary injunction committed by the present applicants/defendants. Necessary facts in this respect are as under :i) The non-applicant filed R.C.S. No. 36/1989 before Civil Judge, Junior Division, Karanja for declaration and permanent injunction along with the application for temporary injunction. The present revision applicants had filed caveat and, therefore, they were served with notices. As they did not fil...

Kasturba Health Society Vs. State of Maharashtra and ors.

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(2)MhLj65

S. U. KAMDAR, J 1. In the present petition, the petitioner is challenging the notice dated 30th October, 2003 claiming property tax from the petitioner. Petitioner is also seeking declaration that the petitioner is entitled to the exemption under the provisions of Rule 7(l)(c) of the Maharashtra Village Panchayat Taxes and Fees Rules, 1960.2. These two petitions are filed by Kasturba Health Society, a society registered Under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and also a public trust registered under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950. This Trust is running a medical education institute in the name and style of Mahatma Gandhi Institute of Medical Education which is imparting education to the students all over the country. In the said institute petitioner has established a hospital i.e. Kasturba Hospital, Sewagram which is treating the patients from all over Vidarbha and the adjoining States of Madhya Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh. For the purpose of running the said me...

Mahesh Agriculture Implements and Forgings Ltd. Vs. Member, Industrial ...

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(1)ALLMR809; 2005(2)BomCR625

Dharmadhikari B.P., J.1. In this petition, filed under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, the petitioner/employer challenges the appellate judgments delivered by respondent No. 1 - Member, Industrial Court, Nagpur, under Section 84 of Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to BIR), thereby upholding the order of 2nd Labour Court, Nagpur dated 27-8-1987 delivered in Application (BIR) No. 112/1984. By this order, the Labour Court has found that the action of petitioners in taking away the work of Chowkidar/Watchman from respondent No. 3/employee, and entrusting the work of Supervisor to him, and changing his occupation/designation in the Attendance Card, is an illegal changed. The 2nd Labour Court has directed the petitioners to withdraw that illegal change.2. The facts in brief in this respect can be stated as under:i) The petitioner is a public limited company and has got its establishment at small Factory area Bhandara Road, Nagpur. The petitioner cont...

Vidyut Metallics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(191)ELT383Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appellants took capital goods credit under Rule 57Q on injection Moulding Machine, and used it to produce Plastic Razor Blade handles which they cleared without payment of duty to an another unit of their own who manufactured Shaving Systems. The second unit cleared the final product on payment of duty. The contention of the Department is that the appellants are not entitled to capital goods credit as if manufactured goods on which no duty was paid. Larger period of limitation is also invoked to demand the credit so taken on the ground that the appellants suppressed the fact that he was making only duty free goods using the Injection Moulding Machine on which capital goods credit was taken. The Commissioner confirmed the decision of the lower authority. Hence the appeal.3. On merits, it was argued that the appellants did not make only duty free goods with the machine in question; that credit can be denied if the machine manufactured only duty free final products; that the razor...

Agarwal and Company Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(182)ELT267Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appeal is directed against the order of Commissioner (A) Central Excise Nasik. The issue relates to admissibility of refund. The facts arc as follows. The appellant was availing of the benefit of SSI exemption during each financial year and after crossing the exemption limit the appellant used to pay Central Excise duty on value of clearances exceeding exemption limit He avails of modvat credit on the inputs when he cleared goods on payment of duty and in the subsequent financial year when he avail SSI exemption he was required to reverse the credit on the inputs in stock or used is any finished goods lying in stock on the date when such option as exercised (Rule 57H (7)). On one such occasion the appellant realised that he had to reverse a total credit of Rs. 90444. In his RG23A P.II he had a balance of Rs. 44336/-.The appellant debited the entire amount of Rs. 90444/- in his PLA He later realised that he could have reversed the credit in RG23 Pt.II instead of debiting the ent...

Auxichem Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(191)ELT368Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The appeal arose out of the order of Commissioner of Central Excise Mumbai VI. In the impugned order the Commissioner dis-allowed modvat credit for Rs. 1,54,737/- under Rule 571 read with proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. Demanded interest under Rule 571, imposed an equal amount of penalty under Rule 571 (4) and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh on the appellant. Briefly the facts are that the Central Excise Officers found shortage of raw materials in the appellant's factory. The input credit taken on the raw material found short was Rs. 1,54,737/-. In the impugned order the Commissioner held that the credit is deniable, as the shortages have not been explained.While demanding this amount under the above said provisions he also imposed an equal amount of penalty and interest as applicable in addition. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh under Rule 173Q for non-accountal of finished goods in terms of Rule 173Q(4).3. The show cause notice issued in this regard alleg...

C.C.E. Vs. C.K.P. Mandal

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(180)ELT471Tri(Mum.)bai

1. The issue involved in this appeal, filed by Revenue, is whether the Service Tax and interest paid thereon is refundable to M/s. C.K.P.Mandal.2. M/s. CKP Mandal work as Mandap Keeper. They entered into a contract with M/s. Shri Saideep Caterers & Decorators (In short Saideep Caterers) for rendering the services of catering and decoration for food in the functions held in their Hall. The Saideep caterers in consideration give the donations to the Respondents. The Saideep caterers had paid Rs.8,35,000/- to the Respondents as donations. The Department regarded this payment as the payment relatable to the service as Mandap keeper chargeable to Service Tax. The Respondents had paid the differential Service Tax on the said amount received by them from Saideep Caterers and subsequently filed refund claim. The Assistant Commissioner, under Order-in-Original No. 59/2002 Dated 22.07.2003, rejected the refund claim filed by the Respondents on the ground that the hirer of Mandap is bound to...

Commissioner of Customs and Vs. Rahul Dyeing and Printing Pvt.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

Reported in: (2005)(181)ELT40Tri(Mum.)bai

1. This is a Revenue's appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner has set aside the order of the lower authority with a direction that the refund involved be sanctioned and paid to the appellant. The respondents filed a refund claim for Rs. 3,56,142/- and Rs. 508/- on 10.12.99 being the balance lying in the appellants RG 23A Part-II Register and Personal Ledger Account Register respectively. The application for refund has been filed in form GAR 46.The accumulated credit lying in RG 23A Part-II can be refunded in case such accumulation has occurred owing to export of goods under bond and the assessee is not in position to utilise the same. The lower authority rejected the claim on the ground that the assessee did not substantiate how he could not have utilised the credit. He also observed that in this case even though the assessee wanted his registration certificate to be cancelled he has not submitted the same for cancellation.2. The Commissioner (Appeals...

Laurel Wires Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs and

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai

1. This stay application arises out of the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) Nasik. in the impugned order the Commissioner dismissed the appeal before her on the ground of non compliance of her dt. 10.3.04 under the provisions of Section 35 F of Central Excise Act, 1944.2. Briefly the facts are the lower adjudicating authority confirmed an amount of Rs. 2,40,552/- for contravention of Rule 57G read with Rule 57A and imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- under Rule 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The applicant procured inputs on which the Central Excise duty has been paid and took credit on the transporters copy of the invoice issued by the inputs supplier. Subsequently it appeared that the transporters copies of invoices were mis-placed and therefore the applicant had debited the modvat credit taken against those invoices. But took back the credit on 27.3.2000. Tims the applicant was operating the RG 23A Part-II account at his own will without any permission from the department ...

Sheshrao Raibhan Ingale Vs. Shilpa Sheshrao Ingale

Court: Mumbai

Reported in: 2005(2)ALLMR184; 2005(2)BomCR667; 2005(1)MhLj188

V.C. Daga, J.1. A reference is made by the learned Single Judge (A. S. Oka, J.) to resolve the conflict of opinions as to the nature and scope of the rights available to the defendant whose 'defence has been struck out' is taken up for final hearing at the admission stage by consent of parties. Why Reference:2. In the case of Ganpat Shankar Waghmare v. Smt. Anjalibai Rao Waghmare, reported in : (2001)2BOMLR425 learned Single Judge (Khanwilkar, J.) has taken a view that once defence is struck out under Order 39, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC for short) as amended by the Bombay High Court, the defendant in consequence thereof looses his right to cross-examine the plaintiff and his witnesses.Whereas in the case of Suryabhan Ranuba Weigh v. Shobha Bhimrao Pawar, reported in : (2003)1BOMLR555 learned Single Judge (Dabholkar J.), while considering the case of absence of written statement has ruled that the defendant cannot be denied right to participate in the process of hearin...